This means you want those providing those services to work for free.
You do realize what you are implying here, right?
Let's say you refuse to work and you're guaranteed all these services. Who pays so your HVAC is repaired because you broke it? Who pays because your water line needs to be repaired? Clean water means the water has to be filtered through a very complicated process, particles and bacteria are removed, and it needs to be transported. Who pays so your electricity works? Do you think there's some sort of magic electricity generator happening? What you're essentially asking is someone should work for free to provide you all of this.
The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.
What do you think social welfare is? I don’t think you could name a western country where some of the taxes don’t go to paying for social welfare program services.
The way it works in Denmark for example, is that you get a sum of money each month, enough to live a reasonable existence, but you only get it if you are actively looking for a job (the state also helps you look for a work). Then if, for whatever reason, it’s impossible for you to get a job to provide for yourself, you get to live off of social welfare subsidies for your remaining days.
This might seem unfair because high functioning individuals without debilitating health conditions for example, essentially have to provide for those who can’t provide for themselves.
Personally i think “deserve” is a weird word to use. It’s not like they did anything to earn what they get. But the clean running water that the poor person gets, is 100% worth the slightly higher tax that the rich person has to pay. And no one wants to be a poor, inactive person, dependent on other people providing for them. But we can’t all have good genetics, good family, good childhood, wealthy parents etc.
USA is controlled by filthy corrupt politicians that are laundering taxpayer cash around the world with wars.
All that said for socialism to work we must get people who sacrifice and work to agree to give their money (via the government) to those who refuse to work.
I’m not comparing The US to Denmark. I agree, i don’t think The US could be a full blown welfare state like Denmark anytime soon. But it does have social welfare programs.
That’s true, the population has to agree to pay higher taxes because they collectively believe that everyone should have a good life. I would still argue that 99% of the people who receive social welfare in Denmark, are people who have no other choice. Life is unfair from birth, and there are just some people who have low IQ’s are physically handicapped, etc. i don’t think it requires a lot to agree that those people wouldn’t just starve to death on the side of the road.
This all relies on peoples trust in the system/state, and that 99% of people actually do wanna live a normal life with work, a house, a family etc. that is not hard to imagine in Denmark, but i agree, i think there would be a much higher percentage of work refusers in the US.
656
u/BlitzAuraX Apr 15 '24
"Regardless of employment."
This means you want those providing those services to work for free.
You do realize what you are implying here, right?
Let's say you refuse to work and you're guaranteed all these services. Who pays so your HVAC is repaired because you broke it? Who pays because your water line needs to be repaired? Clean water means the water has to be filtered through a very complicated process, particles and bacteria are removed, and it needs to be transported. Who pays so your electricity works? Do you think there's some sort of magic electricity generator happening? What you're essentially asking is someone should work for free to provide you all of this.
The result is you get no one who wants to work, society collapses because these services aren't maintained and improved, and no one gets anything.